The American Denial of Global Warming
Uploaded by: uctelevision
Video Description:
Polls show that between one-third and one-half of Americans still believe that there is "no solid" evidence of global warming, or that if warming is happening it can be attributed to natural variability. Others believe that scientists are still debating the point. Join scientist and renowned historian Naomi Oreskes as she describes her investigation into the reasons for such widespread mistrust and misunderstanding of scientific consensus and probes the history of organized campaigns designed to create public doubt and confusion about science. Series: "Perspectives on Ocean Science" [12/2007] [Science] [Show ID: 13459]
Tags for this video: global Naomi Oreskes warming
Find more videos in the "Education" category
See more videos uploaded by uctelevision
| How to Boil A Frog presents Naomi Oreskes - pt. 3 | State of Fear: Hollywood the News Media and Global Warming | Global Warming Consensus |
 |  |  |
| Global Warming 101 | Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (1/5) | Will Ferrell as Dubya on Global Warming |
 |  |  |
Share This Video:
Comments for this video: Show || Hide
Tell a friend:
Explain How the IPCC AR4 was Supported by the data? Explain how the Arctic Melting at an Unprecedented rate Supported by the data?
Explain how AGW cause more Hurricanes was Supported by the data? I could go on and on..
Bovine dropping! How about telling how that wonderful spamming technique is use to silence the other side?
You know FULL WELL that there are many papers out there that completely knock the AGW hypothesis on it's ear.
Most show that the EMPIRICAL data DOES NOT fit the AGW hypothesis at all.
Why do you refuse to acknowledge this FACT?
Many prominent scientists refute AGW and show the hypothesis to be fatally flawed.
And also lets just keep in mind that AGW is just an hypothesis that to this day has NO substantial empirical evidence for support.
grastog, it would help other posters to appreciate the depth of your involvement if you could post references to them here on YT.
It would be helpful if you could mention how many times these papers have been cited - as you have suggested this as an indicator of "perceived quality".
Thanks in anticipation.
grastog, you know that total refutation is unlikely. And the same is true for total validation.
Have you read the accounts given in Hollnd's peer reviewed paper, BIAS AND CONCEALMENT?
This would not be necessary if your claims were accurate grastog. Think about it.
Meantime your posts are degenerating into a trance-like chant.
It means you need to leave your own background out of the discussion. Try to engage other posters without asking them to accept unsupported claims.
While I'm on, you seem to be the only person who repeatedly claims "universal consensus" in the literature. As you are not a climatologist, you lack the qualifications to make that call. Is that another unsupportable claim?
Intial stages of peer review ("journal review")is overemphasised in an attempt to filter information.
The tougher test of peer review is what follows. It involves disclosure, replication of results, and (yes) debate.
It is wrong to claim there is no debate. That would be to suggest that scientific enquiry has ceased.
The mere existence of climateaudit is proof enough of that.
"My background does give me access to the journals" ? Now that's one for the book..hummm Journals! What Journals might those be?
"...the load-bearing proxies are very problematic and, as previously with the Graybill strip bark chronologies (which remain in use), known defects are ignored using contrived excuses."
Again YOU KNOW as well as anyone that anthropogenic warming is NOT universally acknowledged BY ANYONE - IN ANY SENSE.
I would ask you to please refrain from this lie and take a little more of a sensible approach.
YOU KNOW THIS IS A LIE - WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO STATE IT????
Again there are many PUBLISHED papers out there categorically proving the hypothesis FALSE without doubt!
YOU ARE A LIAR!
YOU ARE TRYING TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF SCIENCE WITH POLITICAL LIES.
"...the load-bearing proxies are very problematic and, as previously with the Graybill strip bark chronologies (which remain in use), known defects are ignored using contrived excuses."
"The vast majority of the proxies in this figure are tree rings, so we're back to tree rings."